From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ed1-f49.google.com (mail-ed1-f49.google.com [209.85.208.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D99441A4B2D; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 11:24:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.49 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722425088; cv=none; b=n0eN17Nx5xb2emLXEJG4wJfAy34nQm6fVk28pNEYm9AQrsK35gDnLXI4AFYDyG/RnvZvAyf8tJRzq5ZDINv2JdAmJEH23kC66fdFhuwgI3kvCtv9ucptr/LGWMIXozd8Jh8gTLKx1EOp/tmSDRfROFz3NHqtTjQi2b7E3GL/wdM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722425088; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mJeBt7a2/UvxDMfOzH5vWTzOUni3HatomRBIdB9wi/M=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=KTND4mzXepX+jdnorRqR0TMDBKUpEA6DIBPNJPxUQgXoAJzNM8DTdQUKGJ8Tnvq+rvynUgqQdiL/2oI5QvzHmhOF8Qng+MxybpT61vTyAYvLLMw8errU9cEyjivL5fvTkI70y1Oipx2rmluqupK06BeIRDPBBl9ah2iiXaPLfZI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.49 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-ed1-f49.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5af326eddb2so1481801a12.1; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 04:24:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1722425085; x=1723029885; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=wLdtT+A3n0Xb4QYNnqCYFUNPpLz6lnqGJh0VurtI6SM=; b=BcAOmxZq+coCFx5i/hvfbIXZr2o3YxQsByGELqynM8Cxc3Ub/6jeRaVXXrHJ5Llh7f XMrMchqDn75aMyUis8YnxRX1z9cue0afA1XGvJsLweoc0rps305PWy3hr/gmVWFabG4G cIYSg4YUWpX7eIa/NboDNIVHiGKW1GnddI+CCHvrmtDNvtOshkG2coPAve/ob2rk64EJ k3sM3ALWdHx6m5AihdVHJZ0ZJnpbbe3qQCvQ//W9CR1CisyXdtqMKQAVO0OwBfL85HUG wDjIEynklJfsR0IzOh5HvZxRjxsX1gfM9lAFTSvfHt6IruvkSDV8OskpqzULgzOG+jzw +PGw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWyTx4HRcVP+ErblKnL01VeGpvzazFaTUJAtPUJk+1fTVS/baMvrM6igbtsmSCSEQhDWH+MJPlWqtmGfhuf1sPBzsgf7he85wxxHs82XStigibhQiNbaSq660Ptl3+ct0Wlgpul X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyzShN1MaexciXMsAaaClZSrmhGgr4i4ssA9WDzjoc3ATL/VdAc MBu2Vl9BaoL/fklfFjZ5vIO0SkKLnKYsQTiBSeeNl52aO+8n8KLf X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH8stSlR43duWYMCsiONtPTHYotrqj64a7NDgAzkABfZJYf9VO4vyD185qYfInpZPNjMkgNUg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:1c28:b0:a77:c7d8:7b4c with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a7d859161a8mr603669966b.11.1722425084849; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 04:24:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmail.com (fwdproxy-lla-114.fbsv.net. [2a03:2880:30ff:72::face:b00c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a640c23a62f3a-a7acadb9f60sm753040666b.223.2024.07.31.04.24.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 31 Jul 2024 04:24:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 04:24:39 -0700 From: Breno Leitao To: Paolo Abeni Cc: "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , leit@meta.com, Chris Mason , "open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS" , open list Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: skbuff: Skip early return in skb_unref when debugging Message-ID: References: <20240729104741.370327-1-leitao@debian.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Hello Paolo, On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 11:38:38AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > Could you please benchmark such scenario before and after this patch? I've tested it on a 18-core Xeon D-2191A host, and I haven't found any different in either TX/RX in TCP or UDP. At the same time, I must admit that I have very low confidence in my tests. I run the following tests for 10x on the same machine, just changing my patch, and I getting the simple average of these 10 iterations. This is what I am doing for TCP and UDP: TCP: # iperf -s & # iperf -u -c localhost Output: 16.5 Gbits/sec UDP: # iperf -s -u & # iperf -u -c localhost Output: 1.05 Mbits/sec I don't know how to explain why UDP numbers are so low. I am happy to run different tests, if you have any other recommendation. --breno